koren Sukkot talmud text

8/13/2019 koren Sukkot talmud text

1/6

Sneak peek of Tractate Sukka Selected by the Editors


2/6

23 .

In the case ofone who establishes hissukkaat the top of the wagon or at the

top of the ship, althoughitisportable itis ft, as itis sufficientfora sukkato be a temporaryresidence.And one mayascend and

enter it even on the frstFestival day. In the case ofone who es-tablishes his sukkaat the top of a treeH or atop a camel,B thesukkais ft, but one may not ascend and enter itN on the frstFestival daybecause the Sages prohibitclimbing or using trees oranimals on the Festival.

Iftwo ofthe walls ofthe sukkaare in the tree and one is estab-lished on the ground by a person,N or iftwo are established onthe groundby a person and one is in the tree, the sukkaisft, butone may not ascend and enter it on the frstFestival daybecauseitis prohibited to use the tree. However, ifthree ofthe walls areestablished on the groundby a person and one is in the tree, thensince itcontains the minimum number ofwalls required, itis ft,and one may enter it on the frstFestival day.

Te mishna summarizes thatthis is the principle:N Any casewhere,were the tree removed, the sukkawould be able to re-

main standing in and of itself, itis ft, and one may ascend andenter it on the Festival, since the tree is notits primarysupport.

Te Gemara comments: In accordance

withwhose opinion is the mishna? Itisin accordance withthe opinion ofRabbi Akiva,P as it is taught ina baraita: In the case ofone who establishes his sukkaat the topof the ship,H Rabban GamlielP deems itunft and Rabbi Akivadeems itft.

, . ,

.

, . , ,

.

Perek II

Daf Amud a

: ,

. : . ,

.

A sukkaat the top of a tree : If one es-tablishes a sukkaat the top of a tree or on an animal, it is ft;

however, one may not enter it on the Festival. If it is partially on

a tree and partially on a different surface, and it is constructed

in a manner that it would remain standing if the tree were

removed, then one may enter it on the Festival (Shulan Arukh,

Oraayyim628:3).

HALAKHA

Atop a camel :

Sukkabuilt on a camel

BACKGROUND

It is ft but one may not ascend and enter it :A sukkaon a tree or an animal is ft for the intermediatedays of the festival of Sukkot. However, even if one violates

the rabbinic decree and actually enters the sukkaon the frst

Festival day, he has fulflled his obligation to reside in a sukka.

Two in the tree and one by a person :There are various opinions with regard to the situationdescribed by the mishna. Some maintain that part of the sukka

oor rests on the tree and part of the oor is supported by

poles driven into the ground. Another opinion explains that

the oor of the sukkais supported by the pegs driven into

the tree (Rashi; Meiri). Others explain that the tree is a wall of

the sukkaand the roofng rests on the tree. Use of that sukkais prohibited because people would typically store objects on

the roofng of the sukka, and use of a tree is prohibited on a

Festival (see Tosafotand Melekhet Shlomo).

NOTES

This is the principle, etc. :The early authoritiesnoted that the addition of the expression: This is the principle,

comes to teach several additional halakhot. If the sukkacan

stand frmly without resting against the tree, then even if the

walls are in the tree, the sukka is ft. On the other hand, if its

primary support is the tree, the sukka is unft even if most of

the walls stand on the ground (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Meiri;

and others).

NOTES

Rabbi Akiva :Akiva ben Yosef was one of the great-est of the tannaim. He lived from just after the destruction of

the Second Temple until the bar Kokheva revolt. According tolegend, Rabbi Akiva began his studies at the age of forty, when

Rael, the daughter of the wealthy Kalba Savua, consented to

marry him on condition that he would agree to study Torah.

Rabbi Akiva became the student of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus

and Rabbi Yehoshua ben ananya. Ultimately, he became a

prominent Torah scholar with twenty-four thousand students.

Among Rabbi Akivas frst students were Shimon ben Azzai

and Shimon ben Zoma, with whom he entered the orchard

(see agiga14b), i.e., engaged in the study of esoteric elements

of the Torah. Subsequently, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon bar

Yoai, among others, became his students. He was a staunch

supporter of bar Kokhevas revolt against Rome, and even de-

clared him the Messiah. During the period of Roman Emperor

Hadrians decrees, Torah study was prohibited, but Rabbi Akiva

continued convening assemblies and teaching Torah. Ultimate-

ly, he was apprehended and executed, and he is one of the ten

martyrs whose execution is described in liturgy.

Rabbi Akiva collected early rabbinic statements and began

organizing the material of the Oral Torah. The Mishna, redacted

by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his disciples, is based on his work.

Rabban Gamliel :Rabban Gamliel was Nasi ofthe Sanhedrin and one of the most important tannaim in the

period following the destruction of the Second Temple. Rabban

Gamliels father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder, had also

been Nasiof the Sanhedrin and one of the leaders of the nation

during the rebellion against Rome. Rabban Gamliel was taken

to Yavne by Rabban Yoanan ben Zakkai after the destruction

of the Temple, so that he became known as Rabban Gamliel

of Yavne. After Rabban Yoanan ben Zakkais death, Rabban

Gamliel presided over the Sanhedrin.

Under Rabban Gamliels leadership, Yavne became an im-

portant spiritual center. The greatest of the Sages gathered

around him, including his brother-in-law Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi

Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabban

Gamliel sought to create a spiritual center for the Jews that

would unite the entire people, a role that had been flled by the

Temple until its destruction. Therefore, he strove to enhance the

prominence and central authority of the Sanhedrin and its Nasi.

His strict and vigorous leadership eventually led his colleag uesto remove him from his post for a brief period, replacing him

with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. However, since everyone realized

that his motives and actions were for the good of the people

and were not based on personal ambition, they soon restored

him to his position.

There are not many halakhic rulings cited explicitly in the

name of Rabban Gamliel. However, in his time, and under his

inuence, some of the most important decisions in the history

of Jewish spiritual life were made. These included the deci-

sion to follow Beit Hillel, the rejection of the halakhic system

of Rabbi Eliezer, and the establishment of fxed formulas for

prayers. Those halakhic decisions attributed to Rabban Gamliel

reect an uncompromising approach to halakha; in reaching

his conclusions, he was faithful to his principles. It is known that

two of his sons were Sages: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who

served as Nasi of the Sanhedrin after him, and Rabbi anina

ben Gamliel.

PERSONALITIES

Sukkaat the top of the ship :If one es-tablishes a sukkaon top of a ship, the following distinction

applies: If it cannot withstand a typical land wind, it is unft;

if it can withstand a typical land wind, then even if it cannot

withstand a typical sea wind it is ft, in accordance with Abayes

interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (Shulan Arukh,

Oraayyim628:2).

HALAKHA


3/6

51 .

Te Gemara asks:And according to the other tannatoo,who holdsthatthe primaryessence ofsong is singing withthe mouth, isnt it

writen: And Hezekiah commandedthe song ofthe Lord beganalso, and the trumpets, together withthe instruments, indicatingthatthe instruments are the primaryessence?Te Gemara answers:Tis is what the verse is saying: Te song of the Lord began, in-dicates thatthe primaryessence is with the mouth; with the in-struments of David, King of Israel, is to sweeten the sound, asthe instruments are merelyto accompanyand enhance the singing.

Te Gemara asks:And according to the other tannatoo,who holdsthatthe primaryessence ofsong is singing accompanied bymusicalinstruments, isnt it writen: And it came to pass, when the trum-peters and the singers were as one, indicating thatthe primaryessence is withthe mouth?Te Gemara answers: Tis is what the

verse is saying:Troughtheir juxtaposition, one derives thatthesingers are similar to the trumpeters; just as trumpeters producetheir soundwith an instrument, so too the singers produce theirsongwith an instrument.

One who did not see the Celebration of thePlace of the Drawing ofthe WaterH never

saw celebration in his days.Tis was the sequence ofevents:At theconclusion of the frst Festival daythe priests and the Levites de-

scended from the Israelites courtyard to the Womens Courtyard,where they would introduce a signifcant repair, as the Gemarawill explain.Tere were golden candelabra atoppoles there in thecourtyard.And there were four basins made of gold at the top ofeachcandelabrum.BAnd there were four ladders for each and everypole and there were four children from the priesthood trainees,and in their handswere pitcherswitha capacityof logofoilthat they would pour into each and every basin. From the worntrousers of the priests and their beltsN they would loosen and tearstrips to use as wicks, and with them they would light thecandelabra.H And the lightfrom the candelabra was so brightthatthere was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminatedfrom the light of the Place of the Drawing ofthe Water.

Te pious and the men of actionHwould dance before the peoplewho atended the celebration,

, : ,

.

: , : ! ,

.

. . , , , , . , , .

.

From the worn trousers of the priests and their belts :See Tosafot, who raise the question whythe tunics were not mentioned. Tosefot Yom Tovasks why To-

safotdid not question the fact that the miters were not men-

tioned. Many commentaries, beginning with the Kesef Mishne,

address this question. Some explain that the tunics and the

miters were made from very thin material from which it would

not be possible to fashion the large, thick wicks necessary to

light the candelabra of the Celebration of the Drawing of the

Water (eshek Shlomobased on Kesef Mishne). Others sug-

gest that they used the tunics and the miters to make wicks

for the candelabrum in the Temple, something for which they

did not use the belts and the trousers; the belts because they

were partially made of wool and as determined in the second

chapter of tractateShabbat, a woolen wick does not burn well

in a small fame, and the trousers because it is degrading to

use them in the Sanctuary (see Rabbeinu Yonatan, Meiri, and

TiferetYisrael).

NOTES

The Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water -:Although it is a mitzva by Torah law to rejoice on each Festival, there is a special mitzva to rejoice on

Sukkot. On the eve of the Festival they would construct a balcony

in the Womens Courtyard so the that the men and the women

would not mingle, and the festivities would start at the conclu-

sion of thef

rst Festival day. On each of the intermediate days ofthe Festival beginning after the sacrifce of the daily afternoon

offering they would rejoice and dance for the rest of t he day and

throughout the night (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,Hilkhot Shofar

VeSukka VeLulav 8:12).

Wicks for the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the

Water :The wicks for the lampsthat were kindled for the Celebration of the Place of the Draw-

ing of the Water were made from the worn pants and belts of

the priests (Rambam Sefer Avoda,Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 8:6).

The pious and the men of action :Noteveryone actively participated in the Rejoicing of the Place ofthe Drawing of the Water; only the Sages of Israel, the pious, the

learned Elders, and the men of action would dance and play

musical instruments in the Temple. The rest of the people came

to watch and hear the celebration (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,

Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLulav 8:14).

HALAKHA

Poles and basins :

Celebration in the Temple, with poles and basins in the background

BACKGROUND


4/6

2:

A lulavN that was stolenH or that is com-pletelydryH is unftN for use in fulflling the

mitzva ofthe four species. Te lulavof a tree worshipped asidolatry [asheira]H and a lulavfrom a citywhose residents wereincited to idolatry,Bwhichmustbe burned along withall the citysproperty, are unft. If the top ofthe lulavwas severed or if thepalm leaves were severed from the spine ofthe lulav, itis unft. Ifits leaves, althoughstill atached,were spread and are no longercompletelyjoined to the spine, itisft. Rabbi Yehuda says: In thatcase, one should bind the lulavfrom the top, tojoin the leavesthatspread to the spine. A lulavfrom the palms of the Iron Moun-tain are ft for use, althoughitdiffers from one taken from a stan-dard palm tree, in thatits leaves are shorter and do notcover theentire spine.A lulavthat has three handbreadths in length, suf-fcient to enable one to wave with it, is ft for use in fulflling themitzva.

Te ruling in the mishna is thata stolenlulav is unft. Te Gemara posits: Te

mishna teaches this halakhaunequivocally, indicating thatthere

is no differencewhether the stolen lulavis used on the frst dayof the festival ofSukkot, when taking the four species is a mitzva

byTorahlaw, and there is no differencewhether the stolen lulavis used beginning on the second day of the festival ofSukkot,

when itis a mitzva byrabbiniclaw.

Te Gemara asks: Granted, a dry lulavis unftbothon the frstdayand subsequently. Itis unftfor use because the term hadarisused withregard to the four species, from whichitis derived that

we require beauty.NAnd since in a drylulavthere is notbeauty,itis unft. However,withregard to a stolen lulav, granted, on thefrst day of the Festival itis unft, as it is writen: Andyou shalltake for yourselveson the frstday (Leviticus :), indicatingthatthe four species mustbe taken from your own property.

However,beginning on the second day of the Festival, why doesone not fulfll his obligation witha stolen lulav?

Rabbi Yoanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoai:

Perek III

Daf Amud b

. . . ,. : , .

.

, .

. , : , ,

?

:

Lulav :Although the etrogprecedes the lulav in the versein Leviticus, the mishna begins its treatment with the lulav

for several reasons. First, the blessing recited when taking the

four species is: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the uni-

verse, Who sanctifed us with his mitzvot and commanded us

about taking the lulav. In addition, three of the species, i.e., the

lulav, the myrtle branch, and the willow, are bound together.

Together, they constitute the bulk of the components of the

mitzva of taking the lulav. Furthermore, the halakhotof these

three species are similar, while the etroghas several halakhot

unique to it (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Kappot Temarim).

That is completely dry is unft :There are severalreasons for this ruling. Tosafotand the Ritva explain that it is

unft because it does not meet the criterion of beauty. Although

beauty is mentioned in the verse only with regard to the etrog,

they hold that this halakha pertaining to lulavis derived from

it. Rashi explains that a dry lulav is unft based on the verse:

This is my God and I will glorify Him (Exodus 15:2), from which

it is derived that one should perform the mitzva in a beautiful

fashion (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol;Meiri). Some identify the source

of the unftness in the verse And when you offer the blind for

sacrifce, is it no evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is

it no evil? Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased

with you?(Malachi 1:8). It is a display of contempt to perform

a mitzva with an object that one would not present to a promi-

nent person (Rabbi Zeraya HaLevi; R abbeinu Yehonatan; Sefer

Hashlama). In the Jerusalem Talmud, the unftness is attributed

to the verse The dead praise not the Lord (Psalms115:17), and

a dry lulavis considered dead.

Granted a dry lulav is unft because we require beauty -:The commentaries and halakhic authori ties discuss the parameters and halakhotwith regard to both

the requirement of beauty and the prohibition against taking

a stolen lulav. Some explain that the requirement of beauty

with regard to the four species applies for all seven days of

Sukkotonly in the Temple, where this is a mitzva by Torah law

all seven days (Sefer Hashlama). Others explain that when the

Sages instituted the ordinance to take the lulavall seven days

even outside the Temple to commemorate the Temple, they

included the requirement of beauty in that ordinance, but not

the other requirement that it be ones own property ( Sefat

Emet). See Tosafotand the Ritva, who explain this distinction by

differentiating between a aw intrinsic to the object, e.g., the

lack of beauty, and an external aw, e.g., the object was stolen.

NOTES

A lulavthat was stolen :A lulavor any oneof the other four species that is stolen is unft for use in

fulfllment of the mitzva, whether it is before or after its

owners despaired of recovering it, in accordance with the

opinion of Rabbi Yoanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon

bar Yoai. If change by means of an action was effected

prior to the performance of the mitzva, the lulavitself is ft,

but its use in fulflling the mitzva is prohibited due to the

principle: A mitzva that comes by means of a transgres-

sion. Conversely, some say that a stolen lulavis unft only

for the robber himself, but others who acquire it from him

may use it to fulfll the mitzva after the owners de spair of

recovering it, even if no physical change was effected in

the lulav(Shulan Arukh,Oraayyim649:1).

A lulavthat is completely dry :If mostof the leaves or the spine of a lulavare dry (Tur), it is unft.

What is the defnition of dry? It is when the green color

fades and turns pale. Others say that the defnition of dry

applies only when it is so dry that it crumbles when one

touches it with his fngernail (Tur, citing Tosafot). The latter

opinion was relied upon in lands where there were no

palm trees (Rema, citing Haggahot Maimoniyyot). How-ever, many later authorities hold that one may not rely

on that leniency (Tazand others; Shulan Arukh,Ora

ayyim645:5).

A lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry :A lulavfrom an idolatrous city or from a tree that isitself worshipped as idolatry, is unft. However, a lulav from

a tree planted in a place where idolatry is worshipped is

ft, provided the tree itself was not worshipped (Shulan

Arukh,Oraayyim 469:34).

HALAKHA

A city whose residents were incited to idolatry :This is a city in which the majority of inhabitantsworshipped idolatry (Deuteronomy 13:1319). The city

is judged by the Great Sanhedrin, the court of seventy-

one. The Sanhedrin has the authority to send an army

to subdue the city. Afterward, courts are convened and

each of the city s adult inhabitants is judged. Those found

guilty of idol worship are beheaded rather than stoned,

which is the usual punishment for idolatry. The innocent

are not slain. All the property in the city, including that of

the righteous, is destroyed, and all its buildings are razed.

It then remains in ruins forever.

BACKGROUND


5/6

30 .

It is unftbecause it is a mitzva that comes to be fulflled bymeans of a transgression,Nwhichrenders the mitzva unfulflled,as it is stated: And you have brought that which was stolenand the lame, and the sick; thatis howyou bring the offering;should I acceptthis ofyour hand? says the Lord (Malachi :).Based on thejuxtaposition in the verse, itis derived thatthe legalstatus ofa stolen animal is equivalent to thatofa lame animal.N

Just as a lame animal, because itis blemished, has no remedyand is unftfor use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy.Tereis no difference before the owners reacha state ofdespairB ofrecovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference aferdespair. In bothcases there is no remedy.

Te Gemara elaborates: Granted, before the despair oftheowner, the robber maynotsacrifce the animal because the ani-mal does notbelong to him. Te Merciful One says: When aperson sacrifces from yours an offeringN (Leviticus :). Teterm fromyours indicates thatthe animal mustbelong to theone sacrifcing it, and this stolen animal is not his. However,afer the despair ofthe owner, didnt the robber acquire the

animalwith the despair?N Once the owner despairs, the animalbelongs to the robber, despite the factthathe incurs a debtthathe mustrepaythe owner. Since the animal is legallyhis, whyis itprohibited for the robber to sacrifce itas an offering? Rather, isit not because the offering is a mitzva that comes by means ofa transgression? Since the animal came into his possession bymeans ofa transgression, itis unftfor use in fulflling a mitzva.

And Rabbi Yoanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon benYoai: What is the meaning ofthat which is writen: For I theLord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering (Isaiah:)?HNTe Gemara cites a parable of a esh-and-blood kingN

who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants:Pay the levy to the taxmen. Tey said to him: Doesnt all the

tax in its entirety belong to you? Ifthe taxes will ultimatelyreachthe royal treasury, whatis the pointofpaying the levy? Hesaid to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and willnot evade paymentofthe tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed

be He, said: I the Lord... hate robbery in a burnt-offering.Althoughthe whole world is His and the acquisitions ofmanhave no impactupon Him, God says: From My conduct, Mychildren will learn and distance themselves from robbery,N

even from robberyunrelated to the needs ofofferings.

Perek III

Daf Amud a

: . , , ,

.

. , !

.

: . , . : : : ! . , :

.

A mitzva that comes by means of a transgression -:The later authorities dealt at length with clarifcation of this subject (see atam Sofer) and they discovered

several halakhic distinctions based on this principle. In any

event, apparently, not every object used in the commission of

a transgression is deemed unft for use in fulfllment of a mitzva.

It is unft only in cases where the transgression itself facilitates

performance of the mitzva.

A stolen animal is equivalent to a lame animal :Listed in the surrounding verses are other defects thatdisqualify offerings. Why then did the verse juxtapose specif-

cally the disqualifcations of stolen and lame? This juxtaposition

teaches that the disqualifcation of the stolen animal has no

remedy, just as the disqualifcation of the lame animal cannot

be reversed (Arukh LaNer).

When a person sacrifces from yours an offering :See Tosafot, who question this proof at length.

However, Rabbi Aaron HaLevi writes that whenever the Gemaracites an issue tangential to the central discussion, it is not par-

ticular in citing verses that prove the ultimate conclusion. It

suffices with an allusion that supports the ultimate halakhic

conclusion.

Acquire the animal with the despair :Some em-phasize that this acquisition of the animal is not effected by de-

spair alone; rather, it is brought about through a combination of

despair and a change of possession. This change of possession

occurs when the robber consecrates the animal as an offering

and thereby transfers the animal from his ownership to Gods.

Everyone agrees that the combination of despair and change

of possession is an effective means of acquisition (see Ritva).

Robbery in a burnt-offering :Some emphasizethat the verse is referring specifcally to a burnt-offering, since

it is clearly prohibited to steal other offerings from which the

priest and the owners partake. The verse teaches that even

when the entire off

ering is sacrif

ced to God, and everythingbelongs to Him anyway, God hates robbery (see Rav Yoshiya

Pinto and others).

Parable of aking :One can explain the parable asfollows: The king does not want to deprive the taxmen of their

wages, as they receive a small percentage of each levy. Similarly,

God does not want to deprive the priests,whoreceive a small

portion from the burnt-offering, i.e., the hides (Daat Kedoshim).

From robbery :Some explain that the intention here isnot merely that the Jewish people should distance themselves

from performing an act of robbery; rather, it means that they

should fnd stolen objects repugnant as well, to the e xtent that

they will not utilize them even when purchased from others

(Kappot Temarim).

NOTES

Despair :Despairing of recovering a stolen object isnot merely an emotional state of mind but a legal one as well.

According to halakha, despair occurs when one who has lost

his property despairs of the possibility of recovering it. Once

this happens, the item is considered abandoned property,

and anyone may take it. This concept relates to the halakhot

of returning lost objects, as well as to the legal status of stolen

property.

BACKGROUND

Robbery in a burnt-offering :In a case where onesteals an animal and sacrifces it as an offering, the offering

is disqualifed. God hates it, and needless to say it is not ac-

cepted. However, if the owner despairs of ever recovering the

animal, the offering is ft. Nevertheless, the Sages said that a

sin-offering whose stolen status became public knowledge

does not effect atonement for the one who offers it, even after

the owner despairs, in deference to the altar (Rambam Hilkhot

Issurei Mizbea5:7).

HALAKHA


6/6

Koren Talmud BavliCommentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

SUBSCRIBE AND GET

FREE SHIPPING
http://www.korenpub.com/EN/products/talmud/new_talmud/9789653016040http://www.korenpub.com/EN/products/talmud/new_talmud/9789653016040http://www.korenpub.com/EN/products/talmud/new_talmud/9789653016040http://www.korenpub.com/EN/products/talmud/new_talmud/9789653016040http://www.korenpub.com/EN/products/talmud/new_talmud/9789653016040

Documents

koren Sukkot talmud text